This post may grow if and when I can manage to stomach tainting my mind by calling into remembrance the vast amounts of Sam Harris’ bio-chemically educed brain secretions expressed as writing that I have read or if anyone places some good quotes into the comments section.
About Sam Harris:
Sam Harris is so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness.[1]
Under pressure, Harris reveals ideological biases that will trouble some readers…He seems to loathe Islam with a fury the more surprising because he doesn’t seem to know much about it. (His quotes on the subject stem mostly from the works of Bernard Lewis and a university Web site.)[2]
By Sam Harris:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.[3]
there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male. You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.[4]Where are the women’s rights groups?
you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament.[5]Just who is “you”? No one has for 2,000 years my dear sir.
[Bertrand Russell] had it right when he made the following observation: “The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.” No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals.[6]Sad to note the results of the oxygen deprived brain secretions of someone whose mind is stuck in well within the box atheist group think.
The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.[7]Where are the outcries of the anti-anti-Semites?
The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.Another fine atheist talking point. Yet, another atheist talking point that discredits the atheist while leaving the Bible unscathed. See the post: Positive Atheism - Cliff Walker: The Flat Earth Falls Flat
Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker.
Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world…Faith-based religion must suffer the same slide into obsolescence.[8]Let us add accidents that cause the universe and everything in it to the list.
When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.[9]Ya vol!
making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe…We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.[10]Ya vol!—again.
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.[11]Ya vol!—for real.
Once the neurology of belief becomes clear…religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity.
If we better understood the workings of the human brain, we would undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our states of consciousness, our modes of conduct, and the various ways we use our attention. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers.[12]Those are big ifs but good enough for the atheist who imagines himself into affirming atheism. This is evidence that he is not becoming a neuroscientist in order to practice unbiased science but in order to attempt to affirm his particular sect of atheism.
God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14).[13]
Superb emotive well within the box atheist group think yet, utterly unbiblical.
[1] Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc., 2008), p. 7
[2] Daniel Blue, A Fear of the Faithful Who Mean Exactly What They Believe
[3] Jörg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists, October 26, 2006
[4] ABC Radio National-The Religion Report, “Science Fatwah? Part 2: Sam Harris,” December 20, 2006
[5] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[6] Sam Harris, The End of Faith—Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2004 ), p. 78 quoting Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, ed. P. Edwards (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. 35
[7] Harris, The End of Faith, p. 93
[8] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[9] Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion
[10] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
[11] Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 52–53
[12] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[13] Harris, The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos also Sam Harris, Sam Harris Takes On the Muslim Cartoon Controversy and His Critics
12 comments:
First, I'd like to say that I've found some useful links on your site. But I've also got to say -- beware of getting stuck in a ranting, tendentious, predictable, sarcastic tone, scoring points rather than making them. Atheists are people. Most are honest and ethical. We owe them the utmost measure of intellectual honesty -- indeed, we owe it to everyone, not least to ourselves. Maybe even a little courtesy.
As for the Harris remarks quoted, they are of interest and I thank you for linking to the sources, but many of your responses seem to make little sense. For instance, you want to know, in response to Harris’s stated (hypothetical) preference for eliminating religion rather than rape, “Where are the women’s rights groups?” Well, maybe they’re not scouring the internet for miscellaneous off-the-cuff remarks by pop philosophers and calling press conferences to denounce everything objectionable that they find. Maybe they’re not trying to act as omniscient ideological police. Maybe they’re spending their limited time and money on a large raft of concrete issues, like those which N.O.W. lists at http://www.now.org/issues/. Frankly, the question is silly.
Later, re. another quote, you ask, “Where are the outcries of the anti-anti-Semites?” Well, where should they be? Hasn’t Harris just said that it is “almost impossible” to blame the Jews for the Holocaust? Is it the word “almost” that you think anti-anti-Semites should be outcrying about? But surely they, too have other things to do with their time, and surely in this setting the word simply acknowledges that any distortion of logic can be supported by _somebody_ -- that there is no limit on what some human beings will affirm.
“Sad to note the results of the oxygen deprived brain secretions of someone whose mind is stuck in well within the box atheist group think” is just semi-coherent verbal abuse. If you have a criticism of Harris’s claim to make, why not make it? You can do better than this.
And please, cut the “ja vol”s. Heavy sarcasm rots the mind and looks weak to boot.
Oh, and please, oh goodness gracious, kill the link in your sidebar to the Conservapedia article on “Darwinian Evolution.” I am a Christian, scientifically educated, have written hundreds of real encylopedia articles on science topics: this ghastly thing offends me on every level, religious, scientific, and writerly. It is a mockery of an objective article. “The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution,” it says, a toupee-popping falsehood of the first water. In fact the fossil record is intimately concordant with and illuminated by evolutionary biology (see, e.g., http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4) -- as over 99% of scientists active in relevant fields accept. That fact -- the near-universal acceptance of evolution by working scientists -- this sad little performance cannot even bring itself to acknowledge. One of those scientists, by the way, is evangelical Christian and Obama pick for NIH director Francis Collins, whom you defend ably elsewhere against several silly atheist criticisms.
Hey. You’ve picked a good beat. The evangelical atheists are handing you ammo every day. Class up your act and you’re there.
Sincerely,
Larry
Blogging on religion and science at http://www.theotherjournal.com/blog.php?id=227
Blogging on science-worship and other stuff at http://www.nolongerbythinking.blogspot.com/)
I would pay four million dollars* to see Mariano respond to Larry Gilman above. That's some of the best stuff I've read on this site (though that isn't saying much, as most is just tripe), and it's even more pleasantly surprising to see it comes from a Christian. Kudos.
* If I had four million dollars. Or a single cent.
RE: Atheism is dead!? -- Hardly!
Neo-atheism is not atheism; it is an "anti-theism without conscience" polemic!
In fact, neo-atheists like Sam Harris, et al, are irrationalist-sophists, in both science and philosophy today, as I recently analyzed here: "Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! -- RE: What’s mind (or never mind)!? -- Deciphering idiosyncrasies of scientific/religious rationalism vs. neo-Darwinist/ID-creationist irrationalism, in science and philosophy today!?" (PhysForumEU; August 2).
Best wishes, Mong 8/3/9usct3:47p.
Wow, even atheists are trying to distance themselves from the silliness of people like Sam Harris. Too bad he seems to have bigger bull horn to make himself over "kinder and gentler" (more rational) atheists. I think sarcasm is a perfectly find response to Sam Harris' pontification. I mean it's not like we stone people for blasphemy anymore.
Gentlemen, the "brain secretions" comment had to do with the following quote: "No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so."
Mr. Harris seems to forget that "Thou shalt do no murder" provides a very logical basis for said condemnation--assuming that one considers Christ to be God and His assertions relevant. In fact, Mr. Harris seems to forget a lot of things when they are not convenient to his railings, much as evolutionary biologists tend to do.
A lack of memory on this magnitude can sometimes be construed as the result of neural damage. Thus...you get the picture.
I would also pay good money to see Mariano respond to Larry.
Me too- heck, I might even come back and comment here occasionally. But I won't hold my breath.
Larry- now that's the way to promote dialog. Look me up if you're ever in Vienna, and lunch is on me.
Larry Gilman,
Thanks for the comment.
To which of Atheism is Dead’s 386 posts (as of today) are you referring?
Certainly, this one was one to which I made some sarcastic and fun remarks. Yet, basing the 386 posts on AiD on this one is a very biased sample.
I have a record of being curious and taking atheists seriously and treating atheism fairly.
You will note that I have told my atheist friends that I love them—which I do very, very much (see here).
I pray for them regularly and tackle various issues related to atheism from the light to the very heavy.
Qualify Harris’ remarks as you will: he is a very well known author/speaker and it would be fascinating to see what a women’s rights group has to say; particularly about his view that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role.
As for the anti-anti-Semites: I must honestly thank you as I had inadvertently left off the part directly after where the original post ended the quote. It continues thusly, “This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.” I have edited the post to reflect this now.
Thus, “narrow,” wide or what have you; he is blaming my people for our own suffering throughout the millennia. And please do not tell us Jews what other things we should be doing.
Please use the search engine function on AiD to look up “Sam Harris” and you will find “better than this.” Again, you are basing all of your criticisms on one single post.
The “ja vol”s are as serious as cancer of the brain actually. I have relatives that were murdered by the Nazis and it was ignoring things that you may consider trivial that eventually grew into the Nazis attempt to exterminate my people. This is why we say NEVER AGAIN!
Please direct your criticisms of Conservapedia to Conservapedia—generally, a blog’s author will link to websites expecting that it is ubiquitously known that they do not agree, approve or condone everything that the website states.
Some of my atheist friends seem to make a joke of the fact that I hardly ever respond to comments—anymore. I can only conclude that they are: 1) un-empathetic 2) seeking to score cheap points or 3) they are simply unaware of my post on the issue which is found
here (I would prefer to think that it is # 3).
Joé McKen, Anonymous #2 and Zilch I expect payment asap.
aDios,
Mariano
I don't understand the problem you have with the rape comment. Do you understand what repudiate means? Why would womens groups have any issue with Sam Harris saying Rape is not acceptable?
Fair enough, Mariano. The next time you're in Austria, or I'm in your neck of the woods (you told me once where you live, and I might be passing nearby next year), you can collect, either in cash or in goods.
As long as you're in a responsive mood, what do you say about Larry's criticism of the "Conservapedia" article on evolution? Can one be a true Christian and believe in evolution? Or an old Earth? Where exactly does the Bible intersect with the real world for you?
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
I find it funny when religious people say things like "Wow, even atheists are trying to distance themselves from the silliness of people like Sam Harris".
What you don't understand is that atheism is not comparable to religion. We don't have a unified way of thinking about things. We don't have a sacred text telling us absolute truths we have to believe or are forced to believe like you do.
We can think ourselves. I find some things Sam Harris says differently. He has his opinions and I have mine. We both being atheists do not make any difference.
What me and Mr. Harris agree on is that none of the things priests say really make any sense and hence we both have come to the conclusion, individually, that there really is no reason to believe in any for of gods. That makes us atheists, not some book by written by someone.
I know this is hard to understand when you have been growing up in an environment where reason and critical thinking is forcefully discouraged. Atheism is not believing into something together but not to believing something somebody else says. There is a difference if you think about it.
Cheers!
You spelled jawohl wrong.
Post a Comment